Last in a series of posts about the Unitarian Universalist Association Board Meetings
"Goodnight, and good luck" was Edward Murrow's signature sign-off throughout his 1950s television program, and the title of a 2005 movie about Murrow's run-in with Joseph McCarthy. According to Wikipedia, "It focuses on the theme of media responsibility, and also addresses what
occurs when the media offer a voice of dissent from government policy".
That is a little of what my blog tried to do. Rather than just report out what happened, I tried to give some insight into the thinking, process, and background of the board's actions, whether or not I agreed with our outcomes. Most of the time I did agree, and when I did not, I was mindful of the "one voice" policy: I wasn't muzzled, but I did have a responsibility to share the logic behind the decision. Some posts got a handful of views -- others quite a bit more. Here were some of the most popular:
The decision on Independent Affiliates was made before I joined the board, but I probably got more feedback on that than any other topic. This post, with guest Gini Courter, gives the lo-o-o-ng background behind the decision.
Few people seem to recall any information on the Bay Area marketing campaign in 2007 -- you would have found it here.
I have no idea why this one about my "elevator speech" went "viral" or this one about the April 2009 board packet. More understandable is the one about wearing yellow shirts.
Governance was a hot topic -- including the post that asked "Do the UUA's ends violate congregational polity?", reducing the size of the board, writing ends, or this one about hiring and firing the President. I am convinced that this one about the role of the congregational president got a thousand hits because it included the word "alligator". And how about revoking the Fifth Principle?
Some posts reported out on work I led or partnered in, such as the Healthy Relationships conversations with congregations, Hearing Voices, or Gathered Here, led by Amanda Trosten-Bloom.
My favorite? Singing hymns, about the 2011 virtual delegate trial, probably because I was instrumental in making it happen.
Signing off after six years... goodnight, and good luck.
UUA View from Berkeley
News about issues under consideration by the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations Board of Trustees, from the trustee from the Pacific Central District. Views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the UUA Board.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Coming to Louisville?
Fourth in a series of posts about the April UUA Board meeting
Saturday afternoon of the Board meeting found several of us standing awkwardly in front of a camera, extolling the virtues of GA 2013 in Louisville. I appear with Elizabeth Greene, trustee from the Pacific Northwest, and Tom Loughrey, Pacific Southwest in a somewhat lighthearted two minutes that only took two takes. Those of you who know me will get the joke. Some of the others include the Youth and Young Adults on the board, the two moderator candidates, and Gini being... Gini.
Why should you come? Louisville was chosen because of the central location in terms of population -- it is accessible by car for a significant share of Unitarian Universalists, albeit a bit far from California (2300 miles and 34 hours according to Mapquest). The focus on covenant is more than a theme for the assembly -- we will be having important discussions about who we are as a faith, and whether or not the only way to be counted as a Unitarian Universalist is to join a congregation. We will also be electing a new moderator -- someone who clearly impacts the tone of many General Assemblies to come.
The next best thing to being there is to be an offsite delegate -- you can represent your congregation from anywhere in the world, with a telephone line and a high speed internet connection. Offsite registration is open until June 7.
Saturday afternoon of the Board meeting found several of us standing awkwardly in front of a camera, extolling the virtues of GA 2013 in Louisville. I appear with Elizabeth Greene, trustee from the Pacific Northwest, and Tom Loughrey, Pacific Southwest in a somewhat lighthearted two minutes that only took two takes. Those of you who know me will get the joke. Some of the others include the Youth and Young Adults on the board, the two moderator candidates, and Gini being... Gini.
Why should you come? Louisville was chosen because of the central location in terms of population -- it is accessible by car for a significant share of Unitarian Universalists, albeit a bit far from California (2300 miles and 34 hours according to Mapquest). The focus on covenant is more than a theme for the assembly -- we will be having important discussions about who we are as a faith, and whether or not the only way to be counted as a Unitarian Universalist is to join a congregation. We will also be electing a new moderator -- someone who clearly impacts the tone of many General Assemblies to come.
The next best thing to being there is to be an offsite delegate -- you can represent your congregation from anywhere in the world, with a telephone line and a high speed internet connection. Offsite registration is open until June 7.
Labels:
GA 2013,
Louisville
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The $100,000 Question
Third in a series of posts about the April UUA Board Meeting
The virtual UU skies have lately been focused on a decision coming out of Sunday's UUA board meeting: hiring a consultant to help us (staff and board) create a system to measure whether or not the roughly $20 million we spend each year is working. By "working", I mean whether or not what we do moves us towards the results we have said we want.
Described by one blogger as "marriage counseling", the solution is born out of the frustration of both Board and Staff around our current inability to provide tangible measurements for the effectiveness of the budgeted dollars. The board insists that such measurement is doable, and cites examples from other industries; the Administration has made multiple attempts, none of which have satisfied the Board's need for accountability. This is not about "marriage counseling" or "a consultant to work out their relationship"; it is about a nuanced and complex set of skills needed to "measure the unmeasurable".
An old adage says "you measure what you think is important". This applies to the non-profit world as well. Rather than financial return, the investor is putting in money to help achieve the organization's mission. The founder of Developing Indigenous Resources, for example, is a former public health doctor (and member of my congregation) who is fanatical about measuring outcomes. Do I invest so that his home health workers average 4.2 home visits/month, or rather that infant mortality in a slum of 16,000 people dropped to one fifth of its previous rate in six short years?
How willing are you to continue to invest in an organization whose mission has lofty goals, but can't tell you if we are making progress towards them?
I do not think this is easy, nor do I think it is impossible. The Board has identified $100,000 (one half of one percent of the annual budget) to hire a consultant to help create these measurements. I understand why this amount is disconcerting, especially in light of recent UUA layoffs, but given what is at stake, worth doing.
I believe we have a highly dedicated and competent staff who are doing good work -- what I don't know if whether or not this work is moving the needle.
The virtual UU skies have lately been focused on a decision coming out of Sunday's UUA board meeting: hiring a consultant to help us (staff and board) create a system to measure whether or not the roughly $20 million we spend each year is working. By "working", I mean whether or not what we do moves us towards the results we have said we want.
Described by one blogger as "marriage counseling", the solution is born out of the frustration of both Board and Staff around our current inability to provide tangible measurements for the effectiveness of the budgeted dollars. The board insists that such measurement is doable, and cites examples from other industries; the Administration has made multiple attempts, none of which have satisfied the Board's need for accountability. This is not about "marriage counseling" or "a consultant to work out their relationship"; it is about a nuanced and complex set of skills needed to "measure the unmeasurable".
An old adage says "you measure what you think is important". This applies to the non-profit world as well. Rather than financial return, the investor is putting in money to help achieve the organization's mission. The founder of Developing Indigenous Resources, for example, is a former public health doctor (and member of my congregation) who is fanatical about measuring outcomes. Do I invest so that his home health workers average 4.2 home visits/month, or rather that infant mortality in a slum of 16,000 people dropped to one fifth of its previous rate in six short years?
How willing are you to continue to invest in an organization whose mission has lofty goals, but can't tell you if we are making progress towards them?
I do not think this is easy, nor do I think it is impossible. The Board has identified $100,000 (one half of one percent of the annual budget) to hire a consultant to help create these measurements. I understand why this amount is disconcerting, especially in light of recent UUA layoffs, but given what is at stake, worth doing.
I believe we have a highly dedicated and competent staff who are doing good work -- what I don't know if whether or not this work is moving the needle.
Labels:
monitoring,
Policy Governance,
UUA Board
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Hearing Voices
Second in a series of posts about the April UUA board meeting
Last January the Board drafted a set of outcomes for the
Association – what results do we want to produce, and for whose benefit? In partnership with the District Presidents
Association, we have received feedback from more than 1000 Unitarian
Universalists. You can see the draft
here.
More than 150 of these voices were called and elected
leadership of congregations chosen by the district boards because they were
superb examples of the values of Unitarian Universalism. These were rich interviews conducted by our
district partners. Over 100 called
and elected congregation leaders responded by survey. About 200 were drawn from our Current and
Future Generations – Youth, Young Adults, Children (through proxy with Liberal
Religious Educators), and people who identify and Unitarian Universalist but
are not currently members. These were done through both focus groups and
survey. Interviews and surveys were also
done with a little over 200 people from those representing our Vision of Beloved
Community. A number of historians and
the writings of key historical figures were consulted. In addition to the roughly 600 people who
represented our Sources of Authority and Accountability, we had nearly 400
individual UUs who responded via survey.
What did we hear? A
lot. A quote that typifies the overall
reaction to the draft came from one of our selected congregations in response
to the question “To what degree does this reflect the values of your
congregation?” Though 94% of them said it
“strongly” or “mostly”, one congregation also said: “As a matter of substance, yes. As a matter of style, not so much.”
Some of the feedback was more about language than concept,
but a significant number also addressed the latter. For example, a description of congregations
as “intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful
mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities” was taken to task
for the patriarchal tone of “servicing” communities rather than being in
partnership with them, as well as raising polity concerns about the UUA
describing the mission of a congregation. The concept of “covenanted
communities” raised both plaudits and concerns (described as “bubble-speak” by
one), and while many liked the clear specificity of language around net
increases of congregations, people served, and inspired leadership, others
groaned “it is SOOO not about growth. Growth is an unavoidable outcome of doing
covenanted community well.”
In response to this feedback, trustees have started
rewriting some of these statements. The
DPA/UUA Joint Task Force on Linkage, which has been collecting and analyzing
the feedback, will be making suggestions to the board in an iterative process
over the next month. The intent is still
to have a final draft for the board to approve in its pre-General Assembly
meeting in June. This then becomes the
guidance for the Administration, which has been a key part of creating and
revising these statements.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Surreal
First in a series of posts about the April 2013 UUA Board Meeting
Last Monday’s twin blasts at the finish line of the Boston
Marathon were just the beginning of a surreal UUA Board meeting. Most of us arrived Wednesday evening, as the
police were still combing through photos with no one claiming credit for the
violence. I took the subway, less crowded than usual, but with lots of MBTA
officials standing at every subway door, national guard and police readily
apparent. As I hauled my suitcase across
the Common to Beacon Hill, a young man’s voice right behind me offered to carry
the suitcase up the stairs. It was the
first offer of help in carrying luggage since I started coming to board
meetings (and using the subway) six years ago.
Meetings continued on Thursday, but several people were
unable to get into them because the transit system was shut down. The events that started Thursday evening and
essentially led to Boston and the surrounding suburbs on “lock down” most of
Friday were even more surreal. Financial
Advisor Dan Brody, unable to leave his home in Newton, described the eerie
quiet of his neighborhood as “an invisible snow storm”. I had made it down to Starbucks early that morning– there was an unusual comraderie in the half full
coffee shop. It was shut down by the
police right after I left.
Most of us trooped quickly the half block from Pickett and
Elliot, the UUA’s inn located behind the
headquarters, into 25 Beacon – and stayed there all day. It appeared no one was actually being
prohibited from being outside – but everything was closed, and we saw mostly
police and heard mostly sirens and helicopters.
When the “shelter in place” was lifted, Kathy Burek
(District Presidents Association President) and I walked down as close
as we
could get to the blast site (2 blocks away from it) where I took the this
photo of the impromptu memorial – sacred space so close to tragedy. The cross for the Chinese national (was she
Christian?) was tastefully draped with a Chinese flag.
That night the Common was filled with people. People were lining up to shake hands and get
their photos taken with the police officers there. What you perceived was a product of your
experiences. Was it a group of mostly
young men celebrating deliverance by chanting sports slogans? Or was it a drunken mob that could have
easily exploded in violence, targeting someone with the “wrong” head gear or
facial features?
Being with a group of Unitarian Universalist lay leaders and
ministers was not a bad place to be this week.
We shared a lot of tears, poetry and prayer – including this beautiful one from Sue Phillips, District Executive for Massachusetts Bay District, at a
vigil last Tuesday night, created as a video by Jessica Ferguson.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Listening to our Sources
Fifth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting
The new draft of the UUA "ends" took into account a lot of feedback from various groups we are accountable to (think "Gathered Here" and the World Cafe with Youth as two of them) - and we want more.
The District Presidents Association (DPA), our partners in linking with member congregations, is currently in the process of contacting nearly 100 congregations across the US to get their feedback on these new outcomes. We have surveys going out to Young Adults and unaffiliated UUs (those who identify as UU but are not currently a member of a congregation), focus groups with Youth and Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA) members; interviews with members of various affinity groups, historians, and theologians, as well as an opportunity for anyone who wants to, to weigh in (see below). Much of the work on the "non-congregational Sources" has been with Unity Consulting, who are creating a set of methodologies for a smaller post-June board to be able to continue this kind of dialogue.
Will the UUA Board actually use this feedback? Yes. A group of 5 UUA trustees and 3 DPA presidents will spend several weeks in early April making "meaning" of the feedback, i.e.: looking for common themes. This will be provided to the Board at the April meeting, and the same group will spend most of May identifying recommendations for potential changes to these draft ends.
Let your voice be heard! You can click here to provide your own feedback on why the UUA exists.
The new draft of the UUA "ends" took into account a lot of feedback from various groups we are accountable to (think "Gathered Here" and the World Cafe with Youth as two of them) - and we want more.
The District Presidents Association (DPA), our partners in linking with member congregations, is currently in the process of contacting nearly 100 congregations across the US to get their feedback on these new outcomes. We have surveys going out to Young Adults and unaffiliated UUs (those who identify as UU but are not currently a member of a congregation), focus groups with Youth and Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA) members; interviews with members of various affinity groups, historians, and theologians, as well as an opportunity for anyone who wants to, to weigh in (see below). Much of the work on the "non-congregational Sources" has been with Unity Consulting, who are creating a set of methodologies for a smaller post-June board to be able to continue this kind of dialogue.
Will the UUA Board actually use this feedback? Yes. A group of 5 UUA trustees and 3 DPA presidents will spend several weeks in early April making "meaning" of the feedback, i.e.: looking for common themes. This will be provided to the Board at the April meeting, and the same group will spend most of May identifying recommendations for potential changes to these draft ends.
Let your voice be heard! You can click here to provide your own feedback on why the UUA exists.
Labels:
DPA,
ends,
linkage,
Sources of Authority and Accountability,
UUA Board
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Why the UUA exists
Fourth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board Meeting
-->A healthy network of covenanted Unitarian Universalist
congregations and covenanted communities, in accountable relationships and
alive with transforming power, moving our local communities and the world
towards more love, justice, and peace at a justifiable cost that does not undermine long term
sustainability.
A significant shift in the Board's thinking about the Association's outcomes ("ends") was in focusing on the value added by the Association, not the differences made by its member congregations. Rather than thinking about the above as the UUA mission or vision statement, think of it as the Board's instructions to the Administration. Note the terms "networks", "covenanted communities" and "covenanted UU congregations". We defined "covenanted communities" as:
Covenanted
Communities: The basis of a Unitarian Universalist congregation is not creed,
but covenant. The term “covenanted communities” includes congregations,
and also includes other Unitarian Universalist communities--external to, or
overlapping with, congregations--who have a covenant, but are not currently
defined as formal congregational status, under UUA bylaws.
The remaining statements provide more detail about this overall outcome:
1.1 Congregations have and use UUA resources necessary to enhance the spiritual and religious exploration by people in their communities and to enhance the ministry of their members.
1.2 Congregations are better able to achieve their missions and to spread awareness of UU ideals and principles through their participation in covenanted networks of UU congregations and covenanted communities
1.3 Congregations are intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities.
1.4 Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
1.5 Net increase in the number of mutually covenanted congregations.
1.6 Net increase in inspired religious leaders equipped to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities.
1.7 UU institutions are healthy, vital, collaborative partners invested in the future of UUism, its principles and theologies.
1.2 Congregations are better able to achieve their missions and to spread awareness of UU ideals and principles through their participation in covenanted networks of UU congregations and covenanted communities
1.3 Congregations are intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities.
1.4 Net increase in the number of people served by our congregations and covenanted communities.
1.5 Net increase in the number of mutually covenanted congregations.
1.6 Net increase in inspired religious leaders equipped to effectively start and sustain new covenanted communities.
1.7 UU institutions are healthy, vital, collaborative partners invested in the future of UUism, its principles and theologies.
The next few months will be spent getting feedback on these outcomes -- I will explain how we are doing it in the next post. Your feedback is always welcome, either as a comment to this one, or to llaskowski@uua.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)